The obvious way to prevent terrorism within airports is to have the TSA set up a check point outside the airport and create the large queue there.
You might as well just redefine "within airports" to mean "the area within the TSA checkpoint radius" -- that way the whole Security Theater apparatus continues on, and you don't even have to set up any new checkpoints.
What makes it worse to me is that since they know how many flights are scheduled, they pretty much know exactly how many people will be passing through particular security gates (and at about what time, for that matter). Knowing that you think they could staff the checkpoints appropriately -- even without access to actual ticketing information, historical load factors should allow for very good guesses.
Maybe change it so the H-1B visas are awarded based on annual salary?
In other words, issue the visas for the jobs that will pay the most. My guess is a transparent market like that would quickly get rid of wage disparities (though how to combat the lobbying effort+money that supports the status quo is the next obvious question).
Under federal rules, employers like TCS, Infosys and Wipro that have large numbers of H-1B workers in the United States are required to declare that they will not displace American workers. But the companies are exempt from that requirement if the H-1B workers are paid at least $60,000 a year. H-1B workers at outsourcing firms often receive wages at or slightly above $60,000, below what skilled American technology professionals tend to earn, so those firms can offer services to American companies at a lower cost, undercutting American workers.
This case is about mortgage fraud, not terrorism. Different rules.
Not sure what the context of this thread is at this point, actually, but my point (if any) is
that the "rule of law" has been superseded by a hard-to-pin-down power ceded to
But, to take your argument, what's to stop a President from somehow deciding that your mortgage fraud "substantially supported al-Qaeda"? Remember, there's no judicial review, no jury review, no recourse to habeas corpus, etc, just whatever the President wants to do, for as long as he wants to do it.
I'm really not paranoid, but to respond to that along the lines of "well, I trust that they'll never do that (to me?)" is to admit that the "government of laws, not men" is a thing of the past.
If they want to detain me, they can use whatever excuse to detain me.
No, they can't.
Well, the hazy area that's been with us over the past 10 years or so has been clarified (in case you missed it): http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/u-s-slammed-on-indefinite-detention-torture-and-censorship/
The justice system may not be perfect, but however much people here bleat about the Western world being run by the SS, it isn't. We have the rule of law...
That "National Defense Authorization Act" establishes (to parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_formalism) is a "government of men, not of laws", insofar as a single person (POTUS) can now indefinitely detain any person for any length of time, without review.
There are regulations for this, something along the lines of requiring one 9-1-1 trunk per 5k lines. Seems wildly low, but (as you alluded to) the PSAPs can only handle so many calls, and in the case of a major event a lot of calls would be redundant anyway (e.g. all neighbors on a block calling to report the same fire at a nearby house).
Point taken -- how about:
I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that says "please take whatever you want". I mistakenly include sexually graphic pictures of my wife in the stuff I've put on display. You find them and take pictures of them with your smartphone, then show them to your friends -- should I be able to charge you with theft (or some other crime?) because you should have known that I didn't intend to give those away?"
In other words I left my front door unlocked, this doesn't give you the right to go in and snoop around and take my stuff, you CAN however report to me and the newspaper that my door is unlocked.
Isn't the analogy more "If I put a bunch of things in my driveway (think "free" garage sale) along with a sign that said "please take whatever you want", but mistakenly put some of my wife's cherished possessions on display, should I be able to charge you with theft for taking my wife's things?"
You more-or-less have it, but the key is that you can't be compelled to provide witness/evidence against yourself when your liberty is at jeopardy (not sure of the exact legal phrasing).
This leads to situations where a defendant can invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify to a particular issue at trial, but if he/she is given immunity from prosecution (in one form or another) can be compelled to testify to the same issue (with further refusals to testify met by an open-ended contempt of court charge).
The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.